George Bush: The difference a year makes

January 2001: strong at home, weak abroad. January 2002: the opposite

THE way of the warrior is not an easy one—if you have to win elections as well as wars. One of the defining experiences of George Bush's life must have been watching as his father, riding high in the opinion polls after his triumph over Saddam Hussein in 1991, gradually shed support at home, losing the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. Today's Mr Bush has made a good start as president and an excellent one as commander-in-chief. But he has an even longer time in which to watch his support erode: almost three whole years.

History is not supposed to repeat itself, particularly if, like Mr Bush, you learn from it. Yet a year into his presidency, he too enjoys approval ratings above 80%, he too is presiding over a troubled economy, he too is being bated about tax rises (“not over my dead body”, he said last weekend, a more macho, less grammatical version of his father's “Read my lips”)—and Democrats scent success in the mid-term elections in November.

Most of Mr Bush's supporters would respond by listing the ways in which he is different from his father. But first it is worth emphasising that any such comparison, far from being some sort of jibe, shows how far Mr Bush has come. A year ago, Mr Bush seemed even to this newspaper, which had supported him against Al Gore, “an accidental president”—the victor in a tainted election, the inheritor of a divided Congress. Others regarded him as a figure of fun, a naive dauphin who would have to be nannied by his father's councillors.

A year later—thanks in part to September 11th, but also to an increasingly assured performance before then—the world has got used to George Bush, just as it did to another western conservative governor once held in a mixture of suspicion and ridicule, Ronald Reagan. Worries about his election have faded away. His resolute leadership in the war against terrorism has so far been exemplary. It is still unclear how much America has really changed since September 11th (see article), but Mr Bush certainly has, at least in the eyes of those who once thought him gauche or inadequate.

So the president's high opinion-poll ratings are well earned. But increasingly he will be graded—both by America's voters and by the world outside—on the basis of longer-lasting achievements, on bills passed and wars concluded. Here the first year of his presidency had a lopsided feel.

In foreign policy, Mr Bush has got progressively better. He came to office pledging to tidy up the somewhat meandering diplomacy of Bill Clinton. But fairly soon, a desire for plain speaking drifted into a rather peremptory unilateralism. The Bush administration abruptly pulled out of a variety of international agreements (some for good reason); Mr Bush seemed unduly obsessed by building a missile-defence shield; and he shied away from getting involved with (admittedly intractable) problems, such as the Middle East.

With the agenda-focusing help of September 11th, Mr Bush's team seems now to have a clearer idea of America's interests and stance abroad. The war against terrorism has forced the president to learn the art of coalition-building. The United Nations, if not quite embraced, is no longer shunned. America has become more involved in the Middle East. And Mr Bush has talked about bringing American money and power to bear on the troubles from which terrorism springs.

Mr Bush's domestic performance has been more choppy. He ended last year with two legislative coups—an education bill, which he signed into law this week, and fast-track authority from the House to negotiate trade agreements (something Congress withheld from Bill Clinton). Both are certainly worth having, but they could have been even better. America's lousier schools will now be more accountable, but Mr Bush chickened out of promoting school vouchers. On trade, fast-track came at a cost: concessions to all sorts of protectionist special interests, notably textiles and steel.

However, Mr Bush's domestic scorecard remains dominated by the enormous tax cut he secured last March. Here there is, indeed, a clear difference from his father, who promised lower taxes, and then raised them. But that difference may be one that America comes to rue rather than celebrate. In retrospect, Bush senior's decision to right the government's finances helped ensure America's prosperity in the 1990s. The worry with Bush junior's tax cut is the reverse.

Committing yourself to give back $1.3 trillion over the next 11 years was risky, given the increasing demands on government from the retiring baby-boom generation. After three years of surplus, the government's finances will be in deficit for the rest of Mr Bush's first term, and the guesstimate for the longer-term surplus is melting away. Meanwhile, the Pentagon wants more money and both parties are fighting to twist a stimulus bill to their own political ends (see article).

As this implies, the Democrats are at least as guilty of lax accounting as the Republicans. But they are sticking to the same strategy that brought Mr Bush senior down: unreserved support for his efforts abroad, and unreserved blame for the “Bush recession” at home. Against them, Mr Bush is better placed than his father—more aware of the dangers, with far greater support from the right wing of his party and, above all, with more time for the economy to revive.

A three-year exercise plan

What can he do? Abroad, the formula is simple: more of the same. The impressive start to the war against terrorism needs to be seen through. America needs to display a sustained commitment to Afghanistan, and sound principles governing any actions elsewhere. The bold talk about fighting the causes of terrorism in the developing world needs cash to back it up.

At home, Mr Bush may feel more hemmed in: presidents rarely get much passed after the first 18 months. That should not stop him promoting experiments, such as school vouchers within the District of Columbia, nor preparing the ground for his bigger projects, particularly privatising Social Security. He can also stop bad ideas. A good place to start would be to veto whatever stimulus bill eventually makes it out of Congress.

Mr Bush's first year has brought unwelcome surprises and genuine accomplishments. Now the hard work-out begins.